A U.K. watchdog has scolded Eli Lilly over a press release the drugmaker sent to the BBC, arguing that its use of “promotional and emotive” language brought discredit on the pharma industry.
The PMCPA, the U.K. self-regulatory body for pharma marketing, took up the case after a complainant shared a BBC article about Lilly’s oral GLP-1 receptor agonist orforglipron. The article reported phase 3 data on orforglipron. While the drug is now sold as Foundayo, the small molecule was yet to come to market at the time of the article, leading the complainant to accuse Lilly of pre-license promotion.
Because the BBC article was written by an independent journalist, the PMCPA focused its investigation on the Lilly press release that informed the story. The press release, which Lilly sent to the health editor at BBC News, included phrases such as “transform obesity care” that the PMCPA ruled “went beyond the provision of factual, non-promotional information relating to clinical trial data.”
The PMCPA panel concluded that the “cumulative effect of the language used in the press release, in the context of its audience,” meant that the Lilly document promoted orforglipron before the grant of its marketing authorization. Pre-license promotion is prohibited under the code enforced by the PMCPA.
That finding led the PMCPA to rule that Lilly had breached two other clauses of the code. By neglecting to notice that “the positive language used in the quotations was promotional, in the context of its foreseeable audience,” Lilly failed to maintain high standards, the PMCPA said. Based on those issues, the PMCPA ruled Lilly had brought discredit upon, and reduced confidence in, the industry.
Lilly appealed. The drugmaker argued that the PMCPA panel “placed undue emphasis on selectively extracted wording [and] failed to consider the communication in its full context.” Lilly noted that while the PMCPA focused on the words “transform obesity care,” the full phrase said it is “working to transform obesity care.” The full phrase “is clearly forward-looking and aspirational in nature,” Lilly said.
More broadly, Lilly argued that the rulings were inconsistent with “established PMCPA practice and fundamental legal principles of certainty and proportionality.” The drugmaker warned the PMCPA about rulings that, in its view, extended the scope of the code in an unpredictable and unclear manner.
“The suggestion that routine engagement with journalists, or the use of measured and evidence-based language in communicating clinical data, may give rise to findings of promotion or discredit introduces an unwarranted degree of uncertainty for companies committed to complying with the code,” Lilly said.
Lilly lost the appeal. The appeal board largely reiterated the original panel’s conclusions. The proactive dissemination of a press release with promotional and emotive language to a mainstream media outlet with a broad public reach promoted orforglipron before licensing, the board said. Having adopted that view, the board found Lilly had failed to maintain high standards and brought discredit upon the industry.
In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for Lilly said, “We accept the PMCPA’s decision, and we remain committed to upholding our high standards and complying with all relevant regulations and the ABPI Code of Practice.”